I first saw your post on the 9th, but have only now gotten a chance to listen. I'd like to comment, but since I don't think I've ever done so on one of your recordings let me start by saying what immediately follows is a "running commentary" (ie- what I hear as I listen). It will be more constructive in nature. After that, I'll give general impressions. I hope that's okay.
mm2 - I thought beat two was a little strong. Based on how you accented the F, I thought you'd bring out the Gb in the LH and keep the RH a little softer. (Another thought is that the Ab might have been too subtle, because the 2nd beat matches the 3.5 beat, and the downbeat of the next measure more closely than the Ab on beat 1.)
mm4 - Last beat is a triplet. You didn't line it up vertically. (I'm okay with it, if it was artistic license. But I would probably play it as a triplet to separate it a little better from mm2.)
mm9-14 - keep track of beat 1. Rach really stretches this line, and while it isn't necessary, it can help ground the measures into some sense of time. (Your LH keep time, but the RH is a little more accented -- probably the keyboard, even though it is outstanding for a keyboard -- in places that perhaps it shouldn't be.)
On second thought, after going through the rit. just before the a tempo, I'm thinking that I'm really reacting to the fact that you don't line up the notes vertically. (ie- triplets should play together.) In my opinion, which of course is just me, if you use rubato in one hand, you should use it relatively equally in the other hand so the music lines up. It creates a very different effect in the music -- not necessarily better or worse, just one that I usually prefer when I perform pieces like this. But enough of that, I'll leave it here.. I'm sure if you're interested, you'll be able to track it through the piece. I won't comment on it again.
mm29 - get that rolled chord a little more even. Seemed a little disjointed. How do you currently finger it? If you don't already, might I suggest 5 on the Fb, then 1-5 on the Bb-Bb octave? Might be a little easier than if you're trying to block the bottom chord up to the Bb, and then make the leap.
A few measures later, at the E-maj shift, you really slow down. Intended?
At the pp roll: first, the note before. Why did you break it? I'm not sure I would make the same musical decision, but I liked the effect. Just curious why you chose to do that (and to break it "down" instead of "up"). Now, the roll: why did you delay the top Ab. I actually thought you had a very nice soft roll going, until the Ab didn't land on top. To me, it seemed to break the flow a little.
I'm going to guess this was the keyboard, but in the next few measures, I didn't really sense much volume change. The reason I'm going to guess keyboard is because I could hear a difference in the way the key was struck (or in this case, the way the keyboard played the sample), even though I didn't hear much difference in volume. So, I'm guessing you're actually doing this right, but the instrument itself hindered you here.
If I'm counting right, mm48 - return to p, lone Db in the RH. I would probably completely clear the pedal here, so you get a real solid return to Db. The piece has been wandering, but here is a very clear return to Db, and I would emphasize that. Again, could be the instrument, because a real pedal would behave differently, but just a real subtle thing I heard.
mm49 - can you accent the bottom note without breaking the chord? I think the effect would be better that way. Also, don't forget the C-nat under the Fm third, and the Db at the next measure. It goes down, but also comes back up.
mm52 - it says mf, but I feel like your were a little strong with these notes. Bringing them out is fine, but I think they overpowered what else was going on.
mm53-54 - Like mm52, I think you can be a little less heavy with the top note in the LH and still get the effect you want. But as loud as it is, it's drowning out the Db, which has to resonate through.
Some overall comments:
Consider the moving musical line, and the call-and-response (or "statement and answer") Rach employs throughout this piece. In the opening, you swell into the first Db whole note chord. In the response, you should ebb back into Db. Little things like that will greatly improve the musical line you're playing so well.
I would also consider playing a little more subtly with the LH top note vs the RH bottom note/chord. Take a look at mm10. Great place to bring out that E-nat, but you play it so loudly that it drowns out the remaining music, so we get a solid change instead of a subtle shift. It sounds heavily accented, instead of a much lighter modulation.
Consider creating a softer 'base' for the piece. If I had to describe your dynamic center, I would probably say it is somewhere between mf and f. Now, that could be because I'm listening on headphones that are jacked up, it could be the keyboard, the recording itself, any number of things that have nothing to do with your playing. But it could also be your playing so I wanted to mention it. It could be general dynamic feel, or sharply accented notes that are accented well above the overall sound. If it happens to be that, I'd suggest taking a look at it, and maybe crafting an overall dynamic closer to mp or even p. And create more variance, more subtlety in the dynamic changes and the modulations.
I hope you find some of this useful. I enjoyed your performance, and only commented so specifically because you asked for it. I can tell you put a lot of work into the interpretation, and I didn't want to shortchange you by not putting any thought into my comments. Thanks again for sharing, and nicely performed!